QB Competition

It's fascinating how people still don't understand this.

Take this statement:

Aikman/Bradshaw/Young/Brees/etc struggled in their early years and turned out good.

That statement is made because:

People on here claim that Alex IS a bust, and WILL be a bust.

The statement is said and repeated because:

It makes it painfully clear that the book is far from written on Alex... good OR bad ending.

No one is claiming that Alex WILL become a good or great QB.

Yet others claim Alex WON'T become a good or great QB. The bolded statement and evidence above makes it impossible for this claim to hold water. The majority of QBs that struggle and continue to struggle DO outweigh the ones that turn things around and succeed. No one is arguing that. But the bolded statement in itself makes it very clear that Alex does have a chance... yet others say no chance.

If you had to bet your entire savings right now, would you bet Alex becomes a Probowl QB someday OR that he will never-ever make it to a Probowl as a player?

I would bet on the latter. Sorry. I hope he proves me wrong.

Originally posted by swim4speed:
If you had to bet your entire savings right now, would you bet Alex becomes a Probowl QB someday OR that he will never-ever make it to a Probowl as a player?

I would bet on the latter. Sorry. I hope he proves me wrong.

This is not about whether his chances of busting outweigh his chances of booming.

This is about whether he has a chance of booming. He does, and others say he doesn't... which is terribly flawed thinking.

Every player has some sort of chance. But, what is the probability? What percentage chance does he have after 3 failed seasons and one mediocre season? 1%? 10%? Who knows? Nobody.

Originally posted by swim4speed:
Every player has some sort of chance. But, what is the probability? What percentage chance does he have after 3 failed seasons and one mediocre season? 1%? 10%? Who knows? Nobody.

No, no, no... see that is the problem at hand. Some claim he has NO chance... is this thing not on?

Some say NO CHANCE... he FAILED AND WILL FAIL.

It is this type of biased comment that is rediculous. To call his 2006 year a failure as you have shows me I have again wasted my effort in a discussion with you. A 21-22 year old kid with THAT 2006 team taking us to 7-9? A 22-23 year old kid taking us to 2-1 in 2007 before getting injured? Those 2 seasons go into your 3 failed seasons? Get real...

Originally posted by oldman9er:
It's fascinating how people still don't understand this.

Take this statement:

Aikman/Bradshaw/Young/Brees/etc struggled in their early years and turned out good.

That statement is made because:

People on here claim that Alex IS a bust, and WILL be a bust.

The statement is said and repeated because:

It makes it painfully clear that the book is far from written on Alex... good OR bad ending.

No one is claiming that Alex WILL become a good or great QB.

Yet others claim Alex WON'T become a good or great QB. The bolded statement and evidence above makes it impossible for this claim to hold water. The majority of QBs that struggle and continue to struggle DO outweigh the ones that turn things around and succeed. No one is arguing that. But the bolded statement in itself makes it very clear that Alex does have a chance... yet others say no chance.

What you're arguing is silly. You're basically saying Alex has a minuscule chance to succeed every time a name like Bradshaw, Aikman, or S. Young is brought up. I think we all know that there's a minute chance Alex can turn it around and live up to his billing...just like there was a minute chance that Joey Harrington would live up to his (at similar points in their careers).

Nobody is having trouble understanding that remedial line of thought; the problem I have is how weak of an argument it is.

As far as calling him a bust, well, I think you'd be crazy not to think he falls under that category. It really doesn't matter if he was injured, had bad coaching, or whatever other excuse you want to use to explain his lack of production. The fact is, he hasn't lived up to his #1 overall pick status 4 years later. It's safe to say we made a horrible decision with the pick. This isn't the first time it happened, and it won't be the last.

I'd like to point out the rather large contradiction. To say that everyone knows he has a chance and then to slap the bust label on him in the next breath? So you slap the bust label on him and then later decide to peel it off if he does succeed? How convenient for you. You say he has not lived up to the expectations of his draft status. Uhm... yeah, no kidding. So the word BUST must have different meaning for you. See, I'd go with the label disappointment (and that's just due to injuries), and would only use the bust label if he played the next 2 years... sucked... and was traded... something like that.

Originally posted by Leathaface:

Originally posted by oldman9er:
It's fascinating how people still don't understand this.

Take this statement:

Aikman/Bradshaw/Young/Brees/etc struggled in their early years and turned out good.

That statement is made because:

People on here claim that Alex IS a bust, and WILL be a bust.

The statement is said and repeated because:

It makes it painfully clear that the book is far from written on Alex... good OR bad ending.

No one is claiming that Alex WILL become a good or great QB.

Yet others claim Alex WON'T become a good or great QB. The bolded statement and evidence above makes it impossible for this claim to hold water. The majority of QBs that struggle and continue to struggle DO outweigh the ones that turn things around and succeed. No one is arguing that. But the bolded statement in itself makes it very clear that Alex does have a chance... yet others say no chance.

What you're arguing is silly. You're basically saying Alex has a minuscule chance to succeed every time a name like Bradshaw, Aikman, or S. Young is brought up. I think we all know that there's a minute chance Alex can turn it around and live up to his billing...just like there was a minute chance that Joey Harrington would live up to his (at similar points in their careers).

Nobody is having trouble understanding that remedial line of thought; the problem I have is how weak of an argument it is.

As far as calling him a bust, well, I think you'd be crazy not to think he falls under that category. It really doesn't matter if he was injured, had bad coaching, or whatever other excuse you want to use to explain his lack of production. The fact is, he hasn't lived up to his #1 overall pick status 4 years later. It's safe to say we made a horrible decision with the pick. This isn't the first time it happened, and it won't be the last.

In all honesty, What other choice could the 49ers have made? Almost the entire Top 10 of that 2005 Draft class have turned out to be busts. Wisely no one team was willing to trade the pick. There was too much baggage attatched to the pick! (money/risk) Also, keep in mind that every team is looking for a franchise QB. Whether you agree or not, that is what the 49ers believe they have in Alex Smith and I still have faith in him. No QB could have had success given the same scenario Alex was thrown into!

Originally posted by PTulini:

Originally posted by Leathaface:

Originally posted by oldman9er:
It's fascinating how people still don't understand this.

Take this statement:

Aikman/Bradshaw/Young/Brees/etc struggled in their early years and turned out good.

That statement is made because:

People on here claim that Alex IS a bust, and WILL be a bust.

The statement is said and repeated because:

It makes it painfully clear that the book is far from written on Alex... good OR bad ending.

No one is claiming that Alex WILL become a good or great QB.

Yet others claim Alex WON'T become a good or great QB. The bolded statement and evidence above makes it impossible for this claim to hold water. The majority of QBs that struggle and continue to struggle DO outweigh the ones that turn things around and succeed. No one is arguing that. But the bolded statement in itself makes it very clear that Alex does have a chance... yet others say no chance.

What you're arguing is silly. You're basically saying Alex has a minuscule chance to succeed every time a name like Bradshaw, Aikman, or S. Young is brought up. I think we all know that there's a minute chance Alex can turn it around and live up to his billing...just like there was a minute chance that Joey Harrington would live up to his (at similar points in their careers).

Nobody is having trouble understanding that remedial line of thought; the problem I have is how weak of an argument it is.

As far as calling him a bust, well, I think you'd be crazy not to think he falls under that category. It really doesn't matter if he was injured, had bad coaching, or whatever other excuse you want to use to explain his lack of production. The fact is, he hasn't lived up to his #1 overall pick status 4 years later. It's safe to say we made a horrible decision with the pick. This isn't the first time it happened, and it won't be the last.

In all honesty, What other choice could the 49ers have made? Almost the entire Top 10 of that 2005 Draft class have turned out to be busts. Wisely no one team was willing to trade the pick. There was too much baggage attatched to the pick! (money/risk) Also, keep in mind that every team is looking for a franchise QB. Whether you agree or not, that is what the 49ers believe they have in Alex Smith and I still have faith in him. No QB could have had success given the same scenario Alex was thrown into!

Could've selected Braylon Edwards and traded back in the 1st round and selected Aaron Rodgers. Ronnie Brown wouldn't have been a bad pick either.

Originally posted by D_Niner:

Originally posted by Memphis9er:

Originally posted by D_Niner:

Originally posted by oldman9er:
THIS

... but OL protection and WR seperation are just Alexcuses. As a 1st overall pick, Alex was supposed to shrug off the one or three defenders and throw the perfect pass OR was supposed to quickly release the pass in such a way that the receiver had 3-5 seconds after the pass to then run under it or get open.

Hmmm... someone remind me, who was our leading receiver in 06? Oh, that's right... it was Gore... our dump-off target. Mean anything?... naaaaahhh!

"Rushing is more dependent on the offensive line than people realize, but pass protection is more dependent on the quarterback himself than people realize."

Link

In 2007, [i]Alex's pre-injury games (3) he gave up 9 sacks[/i]. Same year, an inexperienced QB, who was getting his first start ever, only gets 6 sacks in 3 games behind the same line.

I don't know about you, but I would think the guy with 20+ starts would have a lot less sacks then the guy that had almost no NFL game experience.

So it is Smith's fault that he was sacked nine times in three games?That is bulls**t,the only thing a qb can do to avoid a sack when the line sucks like that is throw it away,which Smith did,leading to poor completion %'s.I been watching football for over 30 years,and there is no part of the team,no matter what the stat geeks try to claim,that is more responsible for sacks than the offensive line.You ask any coach or player and they will tell you that the offense is only as good as the offensive line allows it to be,who gives a f**k what some number crunching geeks claim?Have they ever played football?I think not.That "inexperienced" 6 year veteran was not playing behind the same line either,I guess you didn't watch the games.Smiley and Jennings were replaced before Hill ever came in,and Tollner stepping in as an "adviser" helped as well.So your trying to say that Smith is the sole reason Smith got sacked is not only ridiculous,but factually wrong.

WTF, When did I ever say it was the sole reason? You need to learn to read son.

And Yes, I think Alex has his share of fault for those 9 sacks. He held the ball way too long, and was slow moving through his progressions. He did not see Wide open receivers and overthrew the simplest of passes way too often.

So tell me,what does this mean other than he was the sole reason he was sacked?Is there some other meaning to those words than what they are commonly held to mean?I agree he held on to the ball too long,especially when his wr's were not getting open and his line was parting like the red sea.I did not say that he had no fault in getting sacked,he could have gotten rid of the ball,even if it was incomplete.But your statement is worded like he was the sole reason for the sacks,which is total bunk.So,if you do not want to get chastised for making ridiculous statements...don't make them.I didn't mean to hurt your feelings,but you guys are getting ridiculous with the Smith bashing.Also,I am not your son,I am likely old enough to be your father and have probably been watching the niners since before you were out of diapers,maybe even in them.

Originally posted by oldman9er:
I'd like to point out the rather large contradiction. To say that everyone knows he has a chance and then to slap the bust label on him in the next breath? So you slap the bust label on him and then later decide to peel it off if he does succeed? How convenient for you. You say he has not lived up to the expectations of his draft status. Uhm... yeah, no kidding. So the word BUST must have different meaning for you. See, I'd go with the label disappointment (and that's just due to injuries), and would only use the bust label if he played the next 2 years... sucked... and was traded... something like that.

It's not a contradiction. He's a bust, period. Whether or not he bounces back from that (which is rather unlikely) remains to be seen. In my understanding of the word, bust means you didn't live up to your draft potential. Maybe he can still salvage his career (which is what I probably should have said other than saying 'live up to his draft billing').

In any case, we're arguing semantics here...

I think this is all that I'd like to say as far as refutation of the "bust" label. The bolded in particular.

Originally posted by LambdaChi49:

Originally posted by OnTheClock:

Originally posted by Joecool:

Originally posted by OnTheClock:

Originally posted by 49er4eva:

Originally posted by niner4life21:

Originally posted by yoyo49:

Originally posted by Joecool:
Troy Aikman did not have a good year until Emmitt Smith broke out with 1500 yards, his first 1000 yard season.

Alex Smith had almost a 1700 yard back and his stats were not efficient.

Aikman had a 64% completion percentage whereas Alex Smith's was 58%.

Alex only had 6.5 yards per attempt and Aikman had 7.6.

Alex's rating 74.8 and Aikman's was 86.7.


Irvin went from a measly 400 yard 3rd year to a 1500 yard 4th year. I'm sorry, but Aikman was able to use Emmitt Smith's breakout year to his advantage whereas Alex Smith couldn't even take advantage of 8 sometimes 9 men fronts.





Oh, by the way, Alex was sacked every 12.6 attempts.
Aikman was sacked every 11.3 attempts.


Alex had a better running back and the lines were about even but the 9ers had better run blocking, either that or Gore ran better than Emmitt.

How come if Gore is the main reason for our success in 2006 and the main reason the Niners won 7 games.... and if Smith actually hurt the team in 2006.... how come he hasn't been able to replicate those kind of numbers? How come the niners haven't been able to improve on that win total? We have had Gore all these years but things actually got worse when Smith got hurt in 2007.

You guys give him all this credit for being this great runningback in 2006 but he hasn't been able to duplicate that kind of success. And its not Alex Smith's Fault because he has basically been injured during that time.

Just wondering...

You're seriously gonna bash on Gore, who was responsible for so many of our wins that year, and ever since, so you can defend this loser Smith.

wow wow wow wow.

I think its more of a physical attraction for Alex Leaf. I mean seriously. RB and QB are two different positions. What you have to understand is if the defense knows all you do is run. Hello 8 men in the box well 10 if Alex is starting. This is reason why Gore production slipped (not too bad though) after 2006. NO TEAM was scared of Alex Leaf throwing the ball and they still are not.

So YES IT WAS GORE in 2006 that made us receive most of those wins. If we had a decent QB we would have been in the playoffs with the way he was running that year.

We DID have a decent quarterback.. It was not like Smith was some old vet scrub who had reached a peak or something -- he was a vastly improving, extremely young (21 in 2006), promising QB in his 2nd year and 1st full year as a starter. This was a year where he set a franchise record by being the first in team history to take every snap under center in a season.

There wasn't a single dang person shouting the word "bust" about him after his 2nd season concluded and the visual and statistical improvement was witnessed. I mean holy heck, people were excited about that. If he could make such a jump with just a year under his belt, people said there was no telling what he might do next year under Norv (though unfortunately Norv didn't stay and things went haywire the next season with Alex getting hurt).

But c'mon now. People were very, very pleased with his progress, as he was right around where he should've been for his age and that step in his development. Saying "If we had a decent QB" in 2006 doesn't even make sense. Give me a break. If you're at all thinking realistically, you're not going to EXPECT dominance out of a 21 year old QB in his first full season as a starter. Doing that is just stupidity. What you should've expected was large improvement from his rookie year -- and he absolutely accomplished that.

Just because we didn't make the playoffs in 2006 (which you could chalk up because of a missed FIELD GOAL and a dropped end zone pass), to say Smith wasn't decent based purely on Gore's numbers is completely wrong.

The 2006 Pittsburgh Steelers had Ben Roethlisberger passing for over 3500 yards, and Willie Parker racking up 1500 rushing and 13 TDs, yet they went 8-8 and missed the postseason. It's a team game, fellas. Smith could've easily been a "playoff QB" that year, had one or two plays gone the way they were supposed to for us.

Now, if he soon shows he can get it done, we'll be set for a long time at QB. If not, Hill is fine for now until we draft a new guy. But I don't doubt Smith's ability to prove the doubters wrong. It's all "wait and see" right now.

To the bold: But why Pittsburgh missed the playoffs could be broken down into specific parts of the team and Big Ben was not one of those responsible as he held his responsibilities whereas we did not make the playoffs because there were too many games where our QB could barely do anything.

Are you sure it was the QB and not just our entire team, especially a horrible defense, that "could barely do anything" ? -- It doesn't matter if we dominate in time of possession, we can still lose because our defense can't stop them (we saw this last year).

The rout we endured against the Chargers, who went 14-2 that year, Alex was hanging hecka tough against an EXTREMELY good defense and had been having a fine game until they started pulling away as they rolled over our defense with ease.

I think you're pinning WAY too much blame on Alex for our losses that year. Not even the All-Star caliber QB's have great games EVERY single game.

Big Ben is a good QB, he makes plays when needed. Alex can and does, too. In 2006, Ben threw 23 interceptions as opposed to 18 touchdowns. Even last year in their Super Bowl season, he threw only 17 TDs to 15 INTs. If he can do that, and be called "great" or even just "good" now, the put-downs on Alex should stop immediately. Alex in his first season as a 21-year old starter NOW all of a sudden has his 2900 yard, 16-16 TD-INT season looked on as bust-like, are you frickin' KIDDING ME? Bahaha.

(I'm not saying that you, specifically Joe, are doing this) but to those who are..

It's simply illogical to conclude Smith is a bust. You just can't take what you see with the timeline of events and reach that diagnosis.

05: Bad rookie year.
06. Drastic Improvement, fans pleased and excited for what's next.
07: Leads comeback in opener, wins 2 of first 3, get's hurt in game 4.
08: Shoulder not healed properly due to botched rehab by doctors. IR.

If you seriously want to consider his injured games, which some people like to write as "injured" as if he wasn't really hurt, nor was trying to compensate for his injury when throwing.. give me a break. That's like judging a sprinter running with torn ACL. Smith's tendon was completely separated from the bone.

I like how BigMike nor 49er4eva NEVER respond articulately to posts like this.

If I get a warning for calling them out so be it. Its just ridiculous. Posters like that ruin Niner Talk and ruin mature discussion on the Zone in general. As someone who's been here longer than they have, I feel I have a right to call them out.

I really, just want to see a well argued response to OTC's post above by one of those guys. Thats all I'm asking.

Originally posted by OnTheClock:
I think this is all that I'd like to say as far as refutation of the "bust" label. The bolded in particular.

Originally posted by LambdaChi49:

Originally posted by OnTheClock:

Originally posted by Joecool:

Originally posted by OnTheClock:

Originally posted by 49er4eva:

Originally posted by niner4life21:

Originally posted by yoyo49:

Originally posted by Joecool:
Troy Aikman did not have a good year until Emmitt Smith broke out with 1500 yards, his first 1000 yard season.

Alex Smith had almost a 1700 yard back and his stats were not efficient.

Aikman had a 64% completion percentage whereas Alex Smith's was 58%.

Alex only had 6.5 yards per attempt and Aikman had 7.6.

Alex's rating 74.8 and Aikman's was 86.7.


Irvin went from a measly 400 yard 3rd year to a 1500 yard 4th year. I'm sorry, but Aikman was able to use Emmitt Smith's breakout year to his advantage whereas Alex Smith couldn't even take advantage of 8 sometimes 9 men fronts.





Oh, by the way, Alex was sacked every 12.6 attempts.
Aikman was sacked every 11.3 attempts.


Alex had a better running back and the lines were about even but the 9ers had better run blocking, either that or Gore ran better than Emmitt.

How come if Gore is the main reason for our success in 2006 and the main reason the Niners won 7 games.... and if Smith actually hurt the team in 2006.... how come he hasn't been able to replicate those kind of numbers? How come the niners haven't been able to improve on that win total? We have had Gore all these years but things actually got worse when Smith got hurt in 2007.

You guys give him all this credit for being this great runningback in 2006 but he hasn't been able to duplicate that kind of success. And its not Alex Smith's Fault because he has basically been injured during that time.

Just wondering...

You're seriously gonna bash on Gore, who was responsible for so many of our wins that year, and ever since, so you can defend this loser Smith.

wow wow wow wow.

I think its more of a physical attraction for Alex Leaf. I mean seriously. RB and QB are two different positions. What you have to understand is if the defense knows all you do is run. Hello 8 men in the box well 10 if Alex is starting. This is reason why Gore production slipped (not too bad though) after 2006. NO TEAM was scared of Alex Leaf throwing the ball and they still are not.

So YES IT WAS GORE in 2006 that made us receive most of those wins. If we had a decent QB we would have been in the playoffs with the way he was running that year.

We DID have a decent quarterback.. It was not like Smith was some old vet scrub who had reached a peak or something -- he was a vastly improving, extremely young (21 in 2006), promising QB in his 2nd year and 1st full year as a starter. This was a year where he set a franchise record by being the first in team history to take every snap under center in a season.

There wasn't a single dang person shouting the word "bust" about him after his 2nd season concluded and the visual and statistical improvement was witnessed. I mean holy heck, people were excited about that. If he could make such a jump with just a year under his belt, people said there was no telling what he might do next year under Norv (though unfortunately Norv didn't stay and things went haywire the next season with Alex getting hurt).

But c'mon now. People were very, very pleased with his progress, as he was right around where he should've been for his age and that step in his development. Saying "If we had a decent QB" in 2006 doesn't even make sense. Give me a break. If you're at all thinking realistically, you're not going to EXPECT dominance out of a 21 year old QB in his first full season as a starter. Doing that is just stupidity. What you should've expected was large improvement from his rookie year -- and he absolutely accomplished that.

Just because we didn't make the playoffs in 2006 (which you could chalk up because of a missed FIELD GOAL and a dropped end zone pass), to say Smith wasn't decent based purely on Gore's numbers is completely wrong.

The 2006 Pittsburgh Steelers had Ben Roethlisberger passing for over 3500 yards, and Willie Parker racking up 1500 rushing and 13 TDs, yet they went 8-8 and missed the postseason. It's a team game, fellas. Smith could've easily been a "playoff QB" that year, had one or two plays gone the way they were supposed to for us.

Now, if he soon shows he can get it done, we'll be set for a long time at QB. If not, Hill is fine for now until we draft a new guy. But I don't doubt Smith's ability to prove the doubters wrong. It's all "wait and see" right now.

To the bold: But why Pittsburgh missed the playoffs could be broken down into specific parts of the team and Big Ben was not one of those responsible as he held his responsibilities whereas we did not make the playoffs because there were too many games where our QB could barely do anything.

Are you sure it was the QB and not just our entire team, especially a horrible defense, that "could barely do anything" ? -- It doesn't matter if we dominate in time of possession, we can still lose because our defense can't stop them (we saw this last year).

The rout we endured against the Chargers, who went 14-2 that year, Alex was hanging hecka tough against an EXTREMELY good defense and had been having a fine game until they started pulling away as they rolled over our defense with ease.

I think you're pinning WAY too much blame on Alex for our losses that year. Not even the All-Star caliber QB's have great games EVERY single game.

Big Ben is a good QB, he makes plays when needed. Alex can and does, too. In 2006, Ben threw 23 interceptions as opposed to 18 touchdowns. Even last year in their Super Bowl season, he threw only 17 TDs to 15 INTs. If he can do that, and be called "great" or even just "good" now, the put-downs on Alex should stop immediately. Alex in his first season as a 21-year old starter NOW all of a sudden has his 2900 yard, 16-16 TD-INT season looked on as bust-like, are you frickin' KIDDING ME? Bahaha.

(I'm not saying that you, specifically Joe, are doing this) but to those who are..

It's simply illogical to conclude Smith is a bust. You just can't take what you see with the timeline of events and reach that diagnosis.

05: Bad rookie year.
06. Drastic Improvement, fans pleased and excited for what's next.
07: Leads comeback in opener, wins 2 of first 3, get's hurt in game 4.
08: Shoulder not healed properly due to botched rehab by doctors. IR.

If you seriously want to consider his injured games, which some people like to write as "injured" as if he wasn't really hurt, nor was trying to compensate for his injury when throwing.. give me a break. That's like judging a sprinter running with torn ACL. Smith's tendon was completely separated from the bone.

I like how BigMike nor 49er4eva NEVER respond articulately to posts like this.

If I get a warning for calling them out so be it. Its just ridiculous. Posters like that ruin Niner Talk and ruin mature discussion on the Zone in general. As someone who's been here longer than they have, I feel I have a right to call them out.

I really, just want to see a well argued response to OTC's post above by one of those guys. Thats all I'm asking.

Here is my response since you're calling me out.... Alex Smith is a BUST. end of story. drafted number one overall, paid 20 million dollars, hasn't done jack. 2006 season was a fluke. He's injury prone. no more excuses. I'm tired of them. These are facts. I still have a hard time understanding what all you Alex Smith lovers are trying to argue. The guy sucks! are we not seeing the same player wearing #11????!!!

You bros need to chill, bros.

Originally posted by Memphis9er:

Originally posted by D_Niner:

Originally posted by Memphis9er:

Originally posted by D_Niner:

Originally posted by oldman9er:
THIS

... but OL protection and WR seperation are just Alexcuses. As a 1st overall pick, Alex was supposed to shrug off the one or three defenders and throw the perfect pass OR was supposed to quickly release the pass in such a way that the receiver had 3-5 seconds after the pass to then run under it or get open.

Hmmm... someone remind me, who was our leading receiver in 06? Oh, that's right... it was Gore... our dump-off target. Mean anything?... naaaaahhh!

"Rushing is more dependent on the offensive line than people realize, but pass protection is more dependent on the quarterback himself than people realize."

Link

In 2007, [i]Alex's pre-injury games (3) he gave up 9 sacks[/i]. Same year, an inexperienced QB, who was getting his first start ever, only gets 6 sacks in 3 games behind the same line.

I don't know about you, but I would think the guy with 20+ starts would have a lot less sacks then the guy that had almost no NFL game experience.

So it is Smith's fault that he was sacked nine times in three games?That is bulls**t,the only thing a qb can do to avoid a sack when the line sucks like that is throw it away,which Smith did,leading to poor completion %'s.I been watching football for over 30 years,and there is no part of the team,no matter what the stat geeks try to claim,that is more responsible for sacks than the offensive line.You ask any coach or player and they will tell you that the offense is only as good as the offensive line allows it to be,who gives a f**k what some number crunching geeks claim?Have they ever played football?I think not.That "inexperienced" 6 year veteran was not playing behind the same line either,I guess you didn't watch the games.Smiley and Jennings were replaced before Hill ever came in,and Tollner stepping in as an "adviser" helped as well.So your trying to say that Smith is the sole reason Smith got sacked is not only ridiculous,but factually wrong.

WTF, When did I ever say it was the sole reason? You need to learn to read son.

And Yes, I think Alex has his share of fault for those 9 sacks. He held the ball way too long, and was slow moving through his progressions. He did not see Wide open receivers and overthrew the simplest of passes way too often.

So tell me,what does this mean other than he was the sole reason he was sacked?Is there some other meaning to those words than what they are commonly held to mean?I agree he held on to the ball too long,especially when his wr's were not getting open and his line was parting like the red sea.I did not say that he had no fault in getting sacked,he could have gotten rid of the ball,even if it was incomplete.But your statement is worded like he was the sole reason for the sacks,which is total bunk.So,if you do not want to get chastised for making ridiculous statements...don't make them.I didn't mean to hurt your feelings,but you guys are getting ridiculous with the Smith bashing.Also,I am not your son,I am likely old enough to be your father and have probably been watching the niners since before you were out of diapers,maybe even in them.

Talk about grasping at straws... Let me ask you this. Did you think I said it was all Hill's fault that he got 6 sacks? No!... Maybe you're just so on edge about anything anyone posts regarding Alex that your ready to fight first and ask questions later. You know what they say about assuming, right? It makes an Ass out of U and Ming.

Now to answer your question. It means that Alex an experienced QB (20+ starts) was sacked 9 times in 3 games; but, an inexperienced QB (0 starts) was sacked only 6 times in 3 games. If your capable of looking at this objectively, you will see that the 20+ start guy must be doing something wrong.

As for calling you son, I'm sorry. I know this may be hard to accept; but, I didn't mean to infer that I was literally your dad. Age seems to be a big deal to you; so, if it helps, you and I are just about the same age. I love how most 30 something year old posters think everyone on here is younger then they are...